Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Committee of the Regions and the European Economic and Social Committee - Green paper on territorial cohesion: turning territorial diversity into strength {SEC(2008) 2550}
Date: 2008-10-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU regional policy, economic and social cohesion, economic development, social development, town and country planning

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 6.10.2008 
COM(2008) 616 final  

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE 
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS AND THE 
EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE  

Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion 
Turning territorial diversity into strength  

{SEC(2008) 2550} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
  
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

2. 

2.1. 

2.2. 

2.3. 

2.4. 

3. 

A territorial perspective on economic and social cohesion.......................................... 3 

Towards more balanced and harmonious development ............................................... 4 

Concentration: overcoming differences in density ...................................................... 5 

Connecting territories: overcoming distance ............................................................... 6 

Cooperation: overcoming division............................................................................... 7 

Regions with specific geographical features................................................................ 8 

Territorial cohesion in debate and practice at Community and national level............. 9 

3.1. 

Territorial cohesion in the programming of EU policy................................................ 9 

3.2.  … and in the debate in the Member States ................................................................ 10 

4. 

Questions for debate................................................................................................... 11 

EN 

2 

   EN 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE 
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS AND THE 
EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE  

Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion 
Turning territorial diversity into strength 

1.  A TERRITORIAL PERSPECTIVE ON ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COHESION 

From  the  frozen  tundra  in  the  Arctic  Circle  to  the  tropical  rainforests  of  Guyane,  from  the 
Alps  to  the  Greek  islands,  from  the  global  cities  of  London  and  Paris  to  small  towns  and 
villages dating back centuries, the EU harbours an incredibly rich territorial diversity. 

Territorial  cohesion  is  about  ensuring  the  harmonious  development  of  all  these  places  and 
about making sure that their citizens are able to make the most of inherent features of these 
territories.  As  such,  it  is  a  means  of  transforming  diversity  into  an  asset  that  contributes  to 
sustainable development of the entire EU. 

Issues  such  as  coordinating  policy  in  large  areas  such  as  the  Baltic  Sea  region,  improving 
conditions along the Eastern external border, promoting globally competitive and sustainable 
cities,  addressing  social  exclusion  in  parts  of  a  larger  region  and  in  deprived  urban 
neighbourhoods, improving access to education, health care and energy in remote regions and 
the  difficulties  of  some  regions with specific geographic features are all associated with the 
pursuit of territorial cohesion. 

Increasingly,  competitiveness  and  prosperity  depend  on  the  capacity  of  the  people  and 
businesses located there to make the best use of all of territorial assets. In a globalising and 
interrelated  world  economy,  however,  competitiveness  also  depends  on  building  links  with 
other territories to ensure that common assets are used in a coordinated and sustainable way. 
Cooperation  along  with  the  flow  of  technology  and  ideas  as  well  as  goods,  services  and 
capital  is  becoming  an  ever  more  vital  aspect  of  territorial  development  and  a  key  factor 
underpinning the long-term and sustainable growth performance of the EU as a whole. 

Public policy can help territories to make the best use of their assets. In addition, it can help 
them  to  jointly  respond  to  common  challenges,  reach  critical  mass  and  realise  increasing 
returns  by  combining  their  activities,  exploit  the  complementarities  and  synergies  between 
them, and overcome divisions stemming from administrative borders. 

Many of the problems faced by territories cut across sectors and effective solutions require an 
integrated  approach  and  cooperation  between  the  various  authorities  and  stakeholders 
involved. In this respect, the concept of territorial cohesion builds bridges between economic 
effectiveness, social cohesion and ecological balance, putting sustainable development at the 
heart of policy design. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

Recognition of the importance of the territorial dimension is not new. It is at the core of the 
EU structural policies1 and has been since its inception. Several sectoral policies also have a 
specific  territorial  impact  and  some  have  elements2  which  address  specific  territorial 
problems.  

As far as structural policies are concerned, eligibility for support is principally determined at 
the regional level, and there has been growing awareness of the need to frame development 
strategies around the particular assets of territories, their physical, human and social capital as 
well  as  their  natural  resources.  Moreover,  over  the  years,  EU  structural  policies  have 
championed a multi-sectoral, integrated approach to economic and social development across 
the EU. 

The importance of territorial cohesion was highlighted in the Community Strategic Guidelines 
on Cohesion adopted by the Council in 2006, which stated that "promoting territorial cohesion 
should  be  part  of  the  effort  to  ensure  that  all  of  Europe's  territory  has  the  opportunity  to 
contribute to the growth and jobs agenda"3. Similarly, the Community Strategic Guidelines on 
Rural Development4 highlight the contribution which EU rural development programmes can 
make to pursuing territorial cohesion. At the same time, there has been increasing recognition 
of  the  need  to  promote  cooperation,  dialogue  and  partnership  between  different  levels  of 
government and between these and organisations and people on the ground directly involved 
in the development process. 

Yet, the pursuit of territorial cohesion would benefit from a clarification of the many issues it 
raises.  A  shared  understanding  of  these  issues  could  assist  in  improving  the  governance  of 
cohesion  policy,  making  it  more  flexible,  more  capable  of  adapting  to  the  most  appropriate 
territorial scale,  more  responsive to local preferences and needs  and  better coordinated with 
other policies, at all levels in conformity with the principle of subsidiarity.  

Following the conclusions of the informal meeting of the EU ministers responsible for spatial 
planning and regional development in Leipzig on May 24-25, 2007 inviting the Commission 
to "prepare a report on territorial cohesion by 2008"5, this Green Paper launches a debate on 
territorial  cohesion  with  a  view  to  deepening  the  understanding  of  this  concept  and  of  its 
implications  for  policy  and  cooperation.  This  debate  takes  place  without  prejudice  to  the 
outcome of the parallel ongoing Commission reflection on the budgetary review. The Green 
Paper  does  not  cover  any  financial  aspects  of  cohesion  policy  within  the  current  financial 
framework. 

2.  TOWARDS MORE BALANCED AND HARMONIOUS DEVELOPMENT

6 

The settlement pattern of the EU is unique. There are about 5 000 towns7 and almost 1 000 
cities8 spread across Europe, acting as focal points for economic, social and cultural activity. 

1 

2 
3 
4 
5 

6 
7 

The  term  "EU  structural  policies"  mainly  refers  to  policy  interventions  of  the  ERDF,  the  ESF,  the 
Cohesion Fund, the rural development fund and the fishery fund. 
For example, the specific schemes for the outermost regions and some small Greek islands. 
Official Journal L 291, 21.10.2006, p. 29. 
Official Journal L 55, 25.02.2006, p.26. 
http://www.bmvbs.de/Anlage/original_1005349/Conclusions-of-the-German-EU-Council-Presidency-
accessible.pdf 
See SEC(2008) 2550 for an explanation of the territorial typologies used in this section. 
Population between 5 000 and 50 000. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

                                                 
This  relatively  dense  urban  network  contains  few  very  large  cities.  In  the  EU,  only  7%  of 
people live in cities of over 5 million as against 25% in the US, and only 5 EU cities appear 
among the 100 largest in the world9.  

This settlement pattern contributes to the quality of life in the EU, both for city dwellers living 
close  to  rural  areas  and  those  rural  residents  within  easy  reach  of  services.  It  is  also  more 
resource-efficient because it avoids the diseconomies of very large agglomerations10 and the 
high  levels  of  energy  and  land  use  typical  of  urban  sprawl11,  which  will  become  more 
important as climate change, and the action to adapt or to combat it, proceeds. 

The  pattern  of  economic  activity,  however,  is  far  more  uneven  than  settlements  (map  1). 
There are economic gains from the concentration of activity, but also costs from congestion, 
high  property  prices,  social  exclusion  and  pollution.  Economic  activity  has  become  more 
evenly spread across the EU in the past decade due to the high growth in Ireland, Spain and 
the new Member States (map 2). It has become more evenly spread within some countries too, 
such as again in Ireland and Spain, but there continue to be heavily congested urban areas and 
other areas with untapped potential. 

More  balanced  and  sustainable  development,  implicit  in  the  notion  of  territorial  cohesion, 
would achieve a more even and sustainable use of assets, bringing economic gains from less 
congestion  and  reduced  pressure  on  costs,  with  benefits  for  both  the  environment  and  the 
quality of life.  

In its World Development Report 2009, the World Bank recognises how density, distance and 
division  may  affect  the  pace  of  economic  and  social  development.  The  EU  faces  mutatis 
mutandis  similar  questions.  Policy  responses  to  these  may  lie  in  action  on  three  fronts: 
concentration, connection and cooperation, as indicated below.  

Moreover,  certain  regions  have  geographical  features  which  may  pose  particular  challenges 
with  regard  to  territorial  cohesion.  These  are  addressed  separately  in  the  last  section  of  this 
part,  

2.1. 

Concentration: overcoming differences in density 

As  noted  above,  economic  activity  is  more  concentrated  across  the  EU  than 
population.  There  are  gains  from  such  concentration  in  terms  of  the  increasing 
returns from agglomeration and from the clustering of particular activities in specific 
locations, including the wide availability of health care services and relatively easy 
access to higher education institutions and training facilities. This is reflected in the 
high level of GDP per head, productivity, employment and research and innovation 
activity  relative  to  the  national  average  in  capital  cities  and  in  most  other  densely 
populated conurbations.  

At the same time, there are also diseconomies from congestion and a number of inner 
city areas face acute problems of urban decay and social exclusion. This is reflected 
in below average levels of GDP per head and high levels of unemployment but also 

8 
9 
10 
11 

Population above 50 000. 
www.citypopulation.de.  
See OECD, 2007, Competitive Cities in the Global Economy.  
See Peter Newman and Jeffrey Kenworthy, 1999, Sustainability and Cities. Island Press. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

                                                                                                                                                         
in  pockets  of  deprivation,  crime  and  social  unrest  in  many  of  the  more  prosperous 
cities.  Here  the  focus  should  be  on  reducing  the  negative  externalities  of 
agglomeration  and  ensure  that  all  groups  can  benefit  from  highly  specialised  and 
productive economies. 

Intermediate regions, which have more small cities and towns, can also benefit from 
increasing  returns  if  they  create  a  strong  network  of  cities  and  towns  and  develop 
their  strengths  in  a  coordinated  manner.  Towns  and  cities  in  intermediate  and  rural 
regions also provide essential services for the surrounding rural areas.  

Indeed,  in  rural  areas  which  are  more  remote  from  cities  of  any  size,  small  and 
medium-sized towns often play a more important role than their size might suggest. 
The role these towns play in providing access to services including the infrastructure 
necessary  to invest in  the adaptability  of people  and  enterprises,  is  key  to  avoiding 
rural depopulation and ensuring these areas remain attractive places to live. 

Although  most  economic  activity  is  concentrated  in  towns  and  cities,  rural  areas 
remain  an  essential  part  of  the  EU.  They  are  the  location  of  most  of  the  natural 
resources and natural areas (lakes, forests Natura 2000 sites, etc.) (map 6), have good 
air quality (map 7) and are often attractive and safe places to live or visit. 

The key challenge is to ensure a balanced and sustainable territorial development of 
the  EU  as  whole,  strengthening  its  economic  competitiveness  and  capacity  for 
growth  while  respecting  the  need  to  preserve  its  natural  assets  and  ensuring  social 
cohesion. This implies avoiding excessive concentrations of growth  and facilitating 
the access to the increasing returns of agglomeration in all territories. 

2.2. 

Connecting territories: overcoming distance 

Connecting  territories  today  means  more  than  ensuring  good  intermodal  transport 
connections.  It  also  requires  adequate  access  to  services  such  as  health  care, 
education and sustainable energy, broadband internet access, reliable connections to 
energy networks and strong links between business and research centres. This is also 
essential to address the special needs of disadvantaged groups. 

Access to integrated transport systems involves building roads or rail links between 
cities,  inland  waterways,  developing  inter-modal  transport  chains  and  advanced 
traffic management systems. 

In  the  new  Member  States,  good  road  links  are  scarce  and  driving  between  cities 
takes  much  longer  than  in  the  EU15  (map  8).  Good  rail  links  are  also  unevenly 
distributed, and in most Member States railway lines cannot handle high speeds and 
are often in need of repair. 

The  uneven  quality  of  secondary  road  networks  and  public  transport  means  that 
airports  often  take  time  to  reach  (map  9),  while  transport  by  sea,  which  can  take 
pressure  off  congested  roads  and  reduce  CO2  emissions,  remains  under-developed 
(map 10). 

Reliable  access  to  energy  is  equally  important  and  the  particular  situation  of 
networks  isolated  from  the  EU  market  for  geographical  (rural  and  remote  regions, 
islands) or historical reasons (e.g. the Baltic States) needs to be further addressed to 

EN 

6 

   EN 

ensure  a  robust  and  efficient  supply.  Renewable  energy  and  energy  efficiency 
measures can offer opportunities for diversification and sustainable development. 

Access  to  services  of  general  economic  interest  such  as  health  care  or  education  is 
often a problem in rural areas, where for example in remote regions, 40% of people 
on average live more than a 30-minute drive from a hospital and 43% live more than 
a hour drive from a university (table 2). In remote areas especially, the potential of 
ICT to provide access to health care and education through telemedicine and remote 
learning remains to be developed. 

High-speed internet access, however, which has become essential to many businesses 
and  people,  still  reveals  gaps.  In  2007,  household  access  to  broadband  internet  at 
home is on average 15 percentage points lower in rural areas than in urban areas. 

2.3. 

Cooperation: overcoming division 

The  problems  of  connectivity  and  concentration  can  only  be  effectively  addressed 
with  strong  cooperation  at  various  levels.  Equally,  environmental  problems 
associated with climate change, flooding, biodiversity loss, pollution or commuting 
do not respect borders of any kind and similarly require cooperation. Climate change 
is likely to increase the frequency and severity of droughts, fires and floods affecting 
all  regions  and  countries  to  varying  degrees.  Even  problems  perceived  as  purely 
local,  such  as  soil  pollution,  often  have  its  origins  in  much  wider  cross-border 
processes. 

Similarly commuting across regional, and even national, borders often requires inter-
administrative  cooperation  to  provide  solutions  (e.g.  public  transport)  to  minimise 
the negative externalities.  

Economic growth in a globalised world economy is increasingly driven by multiple 
co-operation structures involving different types of public and private actor. This is 
particularly  true  for  innovation  policies  which  need  to  engage  new  constituencies, 
including non-business stakeholders. Accordingly, place-based growth policies need 
to be adjusted in terms of the way they are implemented in order to reflect the new 
reality.  

To  tackle  these  and  other  problems  effectively  requires  a  policy  response  on  a 
variable  geographical  scale, 
in  some  cases  cooperation  between 
neighbouring local authorities, in others between countries, and in yet others between 
the EU and neighbouring countries.  

involving 

In  a  number  of  Member  States,  metropolitan  bodies  have  been  created  to  bring 
together  several  authorities  at  different  levels  to  tackle  issues,  such  as  economic 
development, public transport, access to healthcare and higher education and training 
facilities,  air  quality  and  waste,  which  span  regional  borders.  Some  metropolitan 
regions  cross  not  just  local  and  regional  borders  but  also  national  borders,  such  as 
Eurometropole  Lille-Kortrijk-Tournai  which  includes  cities  on  both  sides  of  the 
border. 

Internal  border  regions  in  the  EU15  countries  have  benefited  from  many  years  of 
cohesion policy to improve cross-border cooperation, such as the EUREGIO Rhein-
Waal created by German and Dutch local authorities on either side of the frontier to 

EN 

7 

   EN 

improve among other things the accessibility, quality and efficiency of cross-border 
health care in this area. This is particularly important due to the lack of clear rules on 
access to cross-border healthcare12. 

Border  regions  in  the  new  Member  States  and  those  on  each  side  of  the  old  Iron 
curtain  have  only  recently  started  to  work  together.  Much  remains  to  be  done  to 
develop  coherent  policies  for  infrastructure  and  economic  cooperation  (map  11). 
Similarly,  coherent  development  in  maritime  spaces,  crossing  land-sea  borders  is 
rarely observed. 

External  border  regions  lag  further  behind  in  economic  development  and  GDP  per 
head (table 3). The EU, however, is surrounded to the south and east by regions with 
still lower levels of GDP per head, combined with higher population growth (maps 
12 and 13), creating strong pressure for migration. 

2.4. 

Regions with specific geographical features  

Three specific types of region in some cases face particular development challenges:  

–  mountain regions, which are often border regions and in which more than a third 

of the people live in rural region; 

–  island  regions,  which  in  many  cases  are  mountainous  and  more  than  half  of  the 
population  also  live  in  a  border  region;  islands  include  6  of  the  7  outermost 
regions; 

–  the 18 sparsely populated regions, all rural and almost all border regions. 

These  are  not  exclusive,  and  there  are  other  regions  with  specific  features  which 
equally  face  common  challenges,  not  least  coastal  zones,  which  are  under  pressure 
from development as well as at risk from global warming, and the outermost regions, 
which  face  a  number  of  challenges  linked  to  demographic  change  and  migratory 
phenomena, accessibility, and regional integration13. 

Some  10%  of  the  EU  population  live  in  mountain  regions  (table  4).  Their  average 
GDP  per  head  is  80%  of  the  EU  average,  though  for  25%  of  those  concerned  it 
exceeds  the  average.  For  most  of  these  regions,  the  population  either  rose  or 
remained  unchanged  between  1995  and  2004.  Mountain  regions  contain  many 
natural  areas  and  often  have  good  transport  links  making  them  popular  tourist 
destinations.  Many  also  have  good  basic  services,  though  the  availability  of  these 
varies significantly from region to region. At the same time, they are confronted with 
the  challenges  posed  by  climate  change,  reliance  on  a  limited  number  of  economic 
activities, pressure linked to tourism, and loss of biodiversity. 

Some  3%  of  the  EU  population,  14  million,  live  in  island  regions.  Their  diversity 
makes  generalisation  difficult.  These  regions  vary  markedly  in  population  size  and 
GDP  per  head.  Their  GDP  growth  has  also  varied,  reflecting  differences  in  their 
economic  structure  with  some  being  wholly  dependent  on  tourism  and  others  with 

12 
13 

Proposal for a Directive on the application of patients' rights in cross-border healthcare COM(2008) 414 
These are addressed in a separate Communication, due to be adopted in mid-October 2008. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

                                                 
strong diversified service sectors. The population increased in most of these regions 
between  1995  and  2004.  Yet,  many  islands  remain  confronted  with  problems  of 
accessibility, of small markets, and of high cost of basic public service provision and 
energy supply. 

Few  people  in  the  EU  live  in  sparsely  populated  regions,  just  2.6  million  in  total. 
GDP per head varies markedly from well below the EU average to well above. While 
the  population  in  most  of  these  regions  remained  stable  between  1995  and  2004, 
three  experienced  a  decline  of  over  5%.  Low  density,  peripherality  and  structural 
weakness  such  as  dependence  upon  primary  industry  coexist  in  these  regions  and 
together represent a substantial cumulative barrier to development. 

3. 

TERRITORIAL  COHESION  IN  DEBATE  AND  PRACTICE  AT  COMMUNITY  AND 
NATIONAL LEVEL 

Although there are some exceptions, the nature of regions as considered above is not for the 
most  part  a  specific  factor  in  determining  EU  support.  While  EU  structural  policies  have 
targeted  less  favoured  regions  with  a  view  to  develop  their  assets  and  potential  areas  of 
comparative  advantage  or  to  overcome  the  possible  constraints  on  growth  imposed  by  their 
specific features, it is less clear how most other Community policies have affected territorial 
cohesion. 

3.1. 

Territorial cohesion in the programming of EU policies... 

Coordination  between  sectoral  and  territorial  policies  is  important  to  maximise 
synergies  and  to  avoid  possible  conflicts.  A  debate  on  territorial  cohesion  is 
important in order to highlight the issues involved and to encourage more analysis of 
them,  not  only  in  the  more  obvious  policy  areas  indicated  below  but  also  more 
generally. 

–  Transport  policy  has  obvious  implications  for  territorial  cohesion  through  its 
effect on the location of economic activity and the pattern of settlements. It plays 
a  particularly  important  role  in  improving  connections  to  and  within  less 
developed regions.  

–  Energy policy contributes to territorial cohesion by developing a fully integrated 
internal  gas  and  electricity  market.  Moreover,  energy  efficiency  measures  and 
renewable energy policy contribute to sustainable development across the EU, and 
may provide long term solutions in isolated regions. 

–  Ensuring  high-speed connection to the internet  has an  equally significant  part to 

play, given its growing importance for competitiveness and social cohesion. 

–  The first pillar of the Common Agriculture Policy and the support it provides to 
farmers also has important territorial impacts through the activities and incomes it 
maintains in rural areas and through the promotion of sound land management.  

–  The  European  Employment  Strategy,  an  integral  part  of  the  Lisbon  strategy, 
makes  an  important  contribution  to  the  development  of  human  capital  through 
better education and the acquiring of new skills in different territories. In addition, 

EN 

9 

   EN 

the  Employment  Guidelines  include  territorial  cohesion  as  one  of  their  three 
overarching objectives. 

–  Maritime  basins  are  confronted  with  competing  demands  for  sea  use.  Separate 
regimes for fisheries, aquaculture, marine mammal conservation, shipping, oil and 
gas,  and  mining  are  designed  to  resolve  conflicts  within  sectors,  but  not  across 
sectors. An integrated maritime policy is developing at EU level to address these 
coordination problems to ensure the sustainable development of marine areas. 

–  Environmental policy impacts in many ways on the location of economic activity. 
Regulatory  requirements  can  have  a  spatial  dimension  and  influence  land  use 
planning.  To  effectively  meet  policy  objectives  and  standards,  regions  and 
stakeholders  work  together,  for  example  in  the  context  of  the  Community 
Biodiversity action plan and the joint management of Natura 2000. 

–  Access to high-quality research and the possibility to participate in transnational 
projects  have  an  increasingly  important  effect  on  regional  development.  The 
territorial  dimension  of  research  policy  is  embodied  in  the  establishment  of  the 
European  Research  Area  (ERA),  in  which  researchers  can  move,  interact  and 
cooperate in an open way. 

–  Competition  policy  can  affect  the  territorial  distribution  of  economic  activity  by 
ensuring that regional aid is concentrated in the most disadvantaged areas and by 
adjusting the intensity of aid allowed to the nature and scale of problems.  

3.2.  … and in the debate in and between the Member States 

Territorial cohesion has been debated in the EU in an intergovernmental setting since 
the mid-1990s, mainly by the Ministers responsible for spatial planning. This debate 
led  in  1999  to  the  adoption  of  the  European  Spatial  Development  Perspective 
(ESDP),  which,  in  turn,  led  to  a  number  of  important  initiatives,  such  as  the  first 
generation  of  transnational  cooperation  programmes  under  INTERREG  and  the 
creation of the European Spatial Planning Observatory Network (ESPON).  

The debate, however, has not progressed as far as it might have until recently. This is 
perhaps  partly  because  of  a  perception  in  the  Member  States  that  national  -  or 
regional  -  competence  over  matters  concerning  land  use  and  development  planning 
was open for discussion. It should be made clear that it is in no way intended to call 
into question national and regional competences in these areas. These issues remain 
outside the scope of the debate launched by this Green Paper. 

With  the  adoption  of  the  Territorial  Agenda  in  Leipzig  in  May  2007,  the  EU 
Ministers  responsible  for  spatial  planning  and  development  underlined  the  need  to 
pursue  sustainable  economic  growth,  job  creation,  and  social  and  ecological 
development in all EU regions while securing "better living conditions and quality of 
life  with  equal  opportunities  irrespective  of  where  people  live"14.  The  Territorial 
Agenda,  and  the  first  Action  Programme  for  its  implementation  adopted  in  the 
Açores in November 2007, have thus given new impetus to the debate by identifying 
six  territorial  priorities  (ranging  from  regional  innovation  clusters  to  ecological 

14 

Territorial Agenda of the European Union, Leipzig 24-25 May 2007. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

                                                 
structures  and  cultural  resources,  from  polycentric  development  to  new  forms  of 
partnership and territorial governance) and the actions necessary to implement them. 

As a corollary, the Commission invited the Member States in 2007 to respond to a 
survey  on  the  conception  and  implementation  of  territorial  cohesion  in  national 
practices (see Annex). 

4. 

QUESTIONS FOR DEBATE 

The questions listed below cover the main issues described in this Green Paper and define the 
scope of the debate it is intended to initiate. The Commission will provide a synthesis of this 
debate in late Spring 2009. 

1. Definition 

Territorial cohesion brings new issues to the fore and puts a new emphasis on existing ones. 

–  What is the most appropriate definition of territorial cohesion?  

–  What  additional  elements  would  it  bring  to  the  current  approach  to  economic  and  social 

cohesion as practiced by the European Union? 

2. The scale and scope of territorial action 

Territorial cohesion highlights the need for an integrated approach to addressing problems 
on  an  appropriate  geographical  scale  which  may  require  local,  regional  and  even  national 
authorities to cooperate. 

–  Is  there  a  role  for  the  EU  in  promoting  territorial  cohesion?  How  could  such  a  role  be 

defined against the background of the principle of subsidiarity? 

–  How far should the territorial scale of policy intervention vary according to the nature of 

the problems addressed? 

–  Do areas with specific geographical features require special policy measures? If so, which 

measures? 

3. Better cooperation 

Increased cooperation across regional and national borders raises questions of governance.  

–  What  role  should  the  Commission  play  in  encouraging  and  supporting  territorial 

cooperation? 

–  Is there a need for new forms of territorial cooperation?  

–  Is there a need to develop new legislative and management tools to facilitate cooperation, 

including along the external borders? 

4. Better coordination 

EN 

11 

   EN 

Improving  territorial  cohesion  implies  better  coordination  between  sectoral  and  territorial 
policies and improved coherence between territorial interventions.  

–  How can coordination between territorial and sectoral policies be improved? 

–  Which  sectoral  policies  should  give  more  consideration  to  their  territorial  impact  when 

being designed? What tools could be developed in this regard? 

–  How can the coherence of territorial policies be strengthened? 

–  How can Community and national policies be better combined to contribute to territorial 

cohesion? 

5. New territorial partnerships 

The  pursuit  of  territorial  cohesion  may  also  imply  wider  participation  in  the  design  and 
implementation of policies. 

–  Does  the  pursuit  of  territorial  cohesion  require  the  participation  of  new  actors  in  policy-
making,  such  as  representatives  of  the  social  economy,  local  stakeholders,  voluntary 
organisations and NGOs? 

–  How can the desired level of participation be achieved? 

6. Improving understanding of territorial cohesion 

–  What  quantitative/qualitative  indicators  should  be  developed  at  EU  level  to  monitor 

characteristics and trends in territorial cohesion?  

The  Commission  invites  all  interested  parties  to  comment  on  the  questions  set  out  in  this 
Green Paper. Replies and additional comments should be sent by 28 February 2009 to: 

European Commission 
DG Regional Policy 
Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion  

CSM1 4/161 

B-1049 Brussels 

or by email to: 

REGIO-GreenPaper-Territorial@ec.europa.eu 

Providing the sender agrees, contributions received electronically, together with the sender’s 
contact details, will be put on the Green Paper website. 

EN 

12 

   EN